I'm still having a couple of problems with him.. I didnt talk to him about anything, I was just going to see how it went.. hoping he would straighten up his act. But it went as follows:
I was the DM for our last game, and throughout my game, he pretty much ran the whole thing and the rest of the party did nothing.
For example, when we came across a temple, he said he was going inside to check it out, and he told everyone else to stay back... and he hid in the shadows with his bow ready.
So for those 10-15 mins, I had absolutely nothing happen, and the game was terrible because he was just being annoying and wanted to shoot the patrons in the temple for no reason and didnt want to speak with any of them until finally i had him discovered... (which he didnt like either. he argued that his roll was high enough to basically become the shadows. but i was sick of his crap.. it didnt matter how high he rolled, i was going to have a member of the temple spot him.) the rest of the players were just standing outside.
I asked my cleric "wouldnt a cleric be upset by someone going into a temple armed with a crossbow, with intentions to hurt the people inside?" and my cleric said "No."
...WHAT?? am i missing something here?
Another time, in game, they stumbled across a building that the ROGUE (my boyfriend) wanted to investigate, so i allowed it.. he's a rogue, he wanted to be rogue-y.. but the ranger wouldnt let him do it alone. he wanted to be basically beside him at all times. this couldve...no, shouldve only taken 5 minutes, but he wants to turn this into the Ranger-Rogue show or something (sometimes his "pretend" infatuation with my boyfriend is unsettling. that's another story for another time though..) so we spent a good 20 minutes letting both of them break into this building.. so i decided to put a puzzle inside for them to solve.. and the ranger just ended up just smashing it to bits. (the puzzle had to do with a mirror, and he decided to just break the mirror.) at that point I really didnt know what else to do..
Meanwhile the battlemind, cleric, and sorcerer (new kid who just joined our group) just kinda.. stood around.. letting the ranger do whatever he wanted, run off without them, etc.
Another puzzle i had set up in a graveyard, the ranger didnt give a crap about.. in game/out of game..he didnt do or say anything.
It was overall fairly annoying. Annoying that the ranger is acting so destructive over everything, and annoying that the rest of my group are a bunch of sad wimps who cant roll play and let the ranger turn this into The Ranger Game.
Everytime we got into a battle, the ranger would exclaim to the group: "See guys, this is why we should just start shooting everyone as soon as we meet them."
No asshat, it's part of the game. If you never talked to anyone, then it would be mindless battling for no purpose.
Christ.
I told the rogue (my boyfriend) that I really dont enjoy playing anymore.. and it really hurts my feelings because, as a girl, I feel kind of like the odd-one-out already in our group.. but I'm really just not having fun anymore.
And the reason for not talking to the ranger about his behavior is for the sake of not making any waves.. he would get offended, pissed off, and leave.. and then everyone would blame me. And.. i guess i'd rather just walk away from the game, than to make the rest of my friends mad at me.
Again I appreciate everyones response to my previous post. You were all very helpful in taking the time to help me and offer suggestions.
Consider getting the basic Red Box set that should be coming out this week or next and running D&D that way so the new player can get up to speed and you can shackle down that ranger.
The prblem with your ranger isn't that he's taking over, it's that everyone else is letting him. From how your description reads it also sounds like there might be other out of game political motives, but since I am not at your gaming table or know the people or relationships involved I'm not even going to speculate.
My advice, and I'm serious, play other games. D&D is obviously causing tension in the group and it sounds like they aren't very role-play heavy anyway. You could try doing things like having the Ranger killed, plot hooking the various other characters or any number of things. The Range/Rogue duo could be overwhelmed by minions until killed. In the temple you could justify the spot by the fact that every NPC gets to make a perception check VS his Stealth. You could double trap a chest or a hallway, or isolate the ranger to fight a solo.
What it all comes down to, is you get dragged down to pulling rank over the Ranger. The ranger sounds like he wants to run an evil campaign and also be the leader, he probably thinks he knows more about the game then everyone at the table. Really, he's the kind of player who pretty much wants to run the game and have everyone else watch as he reads his own self-written bedtime story to the rest of the group.
So, PLAY ANOTHER GAME. One where he may not know the rules. Get a copy of Settlers of Catan, or Lunchmoney, or Hex Hex, or Dominion.
If you want to stay in the scope of D&D then grab Descent: Journies into the Dark, or for real flavor Castle Ravenloft should be hitting store shelves this week.
Betral at House on the Hill is also coming out soon (rather the reprint with the much needed errata should be coming out again in October. Also in October is Theives of Cadwallon, and I'm very much looking forward to that ^_^)
Why am I pushing this so hard? Because if you play a new game you get a clean slate. The ranger will be brought to his knees because he will be completely ignorant of the system or the mechanics and have to submit to learning a new game that you might already know the rules to. Also everyone at the table understands that they get a turn in other games. Nobody who sits down to play Monopoly assumes that they sit there as one person rolls the dice for themselves and buys property and then also rolls the dice for the person on their left and chooses to buy property or not. Everyone is required to be involved and the concept of 'turns' is fully understood by everyone.
This empowers any players who are currently submitting to the ranger's will and become more active in the game, because it's required.
I would also consider telling you about Pandemic, but I already know that the Ranger player would end up bullying everyone at the table and he might as well just play that kind of game by himself, so avoid that kind of Coop game.
Finally, don't introduce it to the group as "Hey, you guys suck at D&D, so let's do something else" Be tactful about it. Schedule your next gaming session, pick a game that they might like that you preferably know the rules too, and tell them your a bit burned out on D&D how about next session you take a break and play a different game.
Barring that, and assuming you toss the recommednation. Acknowledge the fact that your dealing with a group of Monty Hauler's and roll-players. Nothing wrong with that, you just have to accept it. Your group wants to run around and smash face. Stop trying to role-play, think of D&D as a tactical miniature board-game where the heroes visit interesting dungeons and loot the monsters gain levels and do it again. They don't care that the princess is in love with the farm hand and are trying to scedule secret meetings to get married.
They want to kick in the door, kill the bugbear and take his stuff. Towns and stuff should only be pit-stops between smashing face to rest, sell loot and pick up the next quest. The rest of the time should be spent dropping powers and rolling dice.
But seriously, get Descent.
Thanks for keeping us updated btw, I like finding out how things are going or if things ever get any better.
From the real world perspective, this problem won't fix itself if you don't initiate a conversation about it. I don't know what sorts of relationships are at work in your group, but I'm going to assume that your group would be as upset if the problem Ranger drove you off as they would if you pissed off the Ranger and he quit. I assume your group would rather talk out a problem than lose either of you. If you're convinced this would cause too much conflict and you're not having fun anymore, then simply walk away. D&D is a game and it's not worth making yourself miserable over. The above poster had a good idea about trying other games, too.
From the game perspective, you're letting this Ranger walk all over you as much as your players are letting him walk all over them. As DM, your word is law. He wants to shoot a priest in the temple? Fine, let him. He's in a temple of Kord, and he just initiated solo combat against 12 16th level warpriests. He should be dead in a round or two. He breaks the obviously enchanted mirror? Fine, he just released the high level Devil trapped inside. Players only behave like this when they think they can get away with it. Actions have consequences, but this player currently isn't experiencing any. He'll think twice about making this the Ranger show when his actions get him killed a time or two.
The root of the problem is the player though. If he's not willing to have a dialog and try to make things fun for everyone then you probably don't want to be playing with him anyway, time to walk away.
You won't be able to change this player outside of the game, for several reasons, but primarily because people just won't change willy-nilly. He's going to continue playing this way because he is also an aggressive player, to go further, an aggressive player in a passive party. No one is really taking the initiative to propel themselves forward in a leadership position.
So most of your work should be done in-game to attempt to change things.
For instance, lets say he tries to go Rogue again with his Ranger (like in the instance where he destroyed the mirror). He encounters another trap and simply breaks the device. That's all well and good, but...well, now he's a frog. Turns out that you had to solve the puzzle or else become transfigured. It would be an easy fix, and it might make the ranger upset, but it would show that his actions do have consequences. You could then start a quest where they need to revitalize him and restore the ranger back to his humanoid form. This can give players a chance to step up.
The biggest thing you need to do, though, is you need to be firm with this player. With DMing, flexibility is encouraged, but if he's stepping out of line in the context of the game you're running, don't be afraid to just say no, or it didn't work.
We had about 3-4 battles though..after the first one, he called a time-out to reconfigure his encounters and adjust his monsters because he said that they were "too easy".. but even after he made them more difficult, we made some good rolls and managed to defeat them all!
I had a talk with the group before the Ranger came over... they were all, interestingly, supportive and agreed with me that they wished the STORY was more STORY than dungeon crawl. They also said they wish there was more role playing, and more time spent in the towns.
I've also been listening to "Fear the Boot" podcast lately, and have been taking notes on points they make, with which I agree.
I also had made a suggestion to our group that, next time, players just roll whatever character they WANT to play. Yknow, create a character they'll actually CARE about. (This is because our friend D was told to roll a cleric because "we needed one"... so D is playing a Battlemind AND a Cleric. his BM has a great backstory/personality.. but the Cleric is pretty much a drone...)
After making this suggestion, the Ranger, and the BM looked at me like I had 3 heads and said "It would be stupid to have a party without a Cleric." and I replied with "No.. it wouldn't. Because that would allow the DM to have his/her story tailored to that situation, and perhaps the DM would make healing potions more available.." To add, I said "I dont wanna be told what character to roll anymore. Or what character we supposedly NEED." And that shut them up. No one in our group is interested in playing a cleric.. but they feel like we NEEEED it. But as far as a class, everyone is completely uninterested in its structure, or growth. (there is absolutely nothing wrong with a cleric, i'm just trying to explain how we feel)
My bf is going to run the next game, (we are no longer taking turns being DM), and he is going to enforce a 1-character-per-player rule. He doesnt like how the BM has pretty much neglected his Cleric..and wants people to become more invested in their characters. I definitely support this idea. I'm interested in seeing how this plays out..
Oh a nice moment that happened was, later in the night, after we were done playing, the Ranger asked me "So did i incorporate enough story?" i said yes.. and that it was much much better than his last session that he ran. But then i assured him that we're all so new to being the DM, it takes awhile to find the sweet spot.. and that i appreciated him putting more story into it this time.
So all in all, I think in the end.. it might be ok. I still get stressed out every weekend when we play.. but.. at the end of the day, I'm going to stand up for what character I want to roll (whether it be a Deva, or a Bullywug) and I know that I can walk away whenever I want to, and I dont need to take crap from them.
Thanks again everyone for being so helpful with all your suggestions and words of encouragement and all the invitations to join your groups!! I say yes to all if I'm ever in your area! And the same invite is extended to all - if you ever find yourself in Southern CA, come on over! :D
As opposed to the cleric as the Designated Healer, you have the Leader. The Leader takes a stronger role in party survival than others, but they aren't just the dedicated healer. They do more, and the responsibility of party survival is on EVERYONE. Maybe point this out next time "Hey, who gets to play the cleric?" comes up. It's actually a big part of the reason that the Warlord was placed in the PHB, really: It demonstrates the change in structure.
2: Sounds a bit like the Ranger finally managed to catch on, I guess. That's great. Though, sounds like you won't have to put up with his DMing any more?
Sounds like the other guys were more into roleplaying then you originally described, which is a great thing, and that the ranger player was willing to comprise after all, which is just fantastic.
Even better indeed, as Breadly stated, you are standing up for yourself and not backing down anymore.
GO YOU!
1: It wouldn't be stupid to have a party without a Cleric. A party without a Cleric, Warlord, Bard, Shaman, Artificer, Ardent, or Runepriest may be in a bit of trouble, but it can be handled, especially if someone rolls a Paladin, and/or if there are some THP generating characters in the group. That attitude is an artifact of old editions without place in 4e. Used to be the cleric was the "healbot", expected to burn a lot of spells purely on party survival. Now, the role of healing in general has been reduced and spread out, and the "specialist" in it is a ROLE, not a CLASS. Big difference. No one class, heck, even no one role is essential to the game.
As opposed to the cleric as the Designated Healer, you have the Leader. The Leader takes a stronger role in party survival than others, but they aren't just the dedicated healer. They do more, and the responsibility of party survival is on EVERYONE. Maybe point this out next time "Hey, who gets to play the cleric?" comes up. It's actually a big part of the reason that the Warlord was placed in the PHB, really: It demonstrates the change in structure.
Inarai is correct that you don't NEED a dedicated healer anymore, but if any of the classes he listed there interest anyone in your party it'd be prudent to have one. Mainly because encounter design is based on the assumption of having at least one of each role. Since none of you are experienced DMs, you'll make whoever is doing the job's life easier by having a balanced party.
Still though, you don't NEED one by any stretch of the imagination, just make sure that everyone in the party puts at least some focus on shoring up defenses/temp hp/healing skills if you decide to go without.
Hey all! I just wanted to post an update! This past Saturday, the Ranger was the DM.. and we didn't die!
We had about 3-4 battles though..after the first one, he called a time-out to reconfigure his encounters and adjust his monsters because he said that they were "too easy".. but even after he made them more difficult, we made some good rolls and managed to defeat them all!
I had a talk with the group before the Ranger came over... they were all, interestingly, supportive and agreed with me that they wished the STORY was more STORY than dungeon crawl. They also said they wish there was more role playing, and more time spent in the towns.
I've also been listening to "Fear the Boot" podcast lately, and have been taking notes on points they make, with which I agree.
I also had made a suggestion to our group that, next time, players just roll whatever character they WANT to play. Yknow, create a character they'll actually CARE about. (This is because our friend D was told to roll a cleric because "we needed one"... so D is playing a Battlemind AND a Cleric. his BM has a great backstory/personality.. but the Cleric is pretty much a drone...)
After making this suggestion, the Ranger, and the BM looked at me like I had 3 heads and said "It would be stupid to have a party without a Cleric." and I replied with "No.. it wouldn't. Because that would allow the DM to have his/her story tailored to that situation, and perhaps the DM would make healing potions more available.." To add, I said "I dont wanna be told what character to roll anymore. Or what character we supposedly NEED." And that shut them up. No one in our group is interested in playing a cleric.. but they feel like we NEEEED it. But as far as a class, everyone is completely uninterested in its structure, or growth. (there is absolutely nothing wrong with a cleric, i'm just trying to explain how we feel)
My bf is going to run the next game, (we are no longer taking turns being DM), and he is going to enforce a 1-character-per-player rule. He doesnt like how the BM has pretty much neglected his Cleric..and wants people to become more invested in their characters. I definitely support this idea. I'm interested in seeing how this plays out..
Oh a nice moment that happened was, later in the night, after we were done playing, the Ranger asked me "So did i incorporate enough story?" i said yes.. and that it was much much better than his last session that he ran. But then i assured him that we're all so new to being the DM, it takes awhile to find the sweet spot.. and that i appreciated him putting more story into it this time.
So all in all, I think in the end.. it might be ok. I still get stressed out every weekend when we play.. but.. at the end of the day, I'm going to stand up for what character I want to roll (whether it be a Deva, or a Bullywug) and I know that I can walk away whenever I want to, and I dont need to take crap from them.
Thanks again everyone for being so helpful with all your suggestions and words of encouragement and all the invitations to join your groups!! I say yes to all if I'm ever in your area! And the same invite is extended to all - if you ever find yourself in Southern CA, come on over! :D
Yay! Good to hear that he's actually listening to your concerns.